Apple's VP of the iPod Division and iPod inventor Tony Fadell (the one with the red 'X') is out, to be replaced with former IBM top gun Mark Papermaster. IBM is suing Apple over the acquisition. Fadell isn't free from Apple quite yet -- he will stay on as iPhone inventor (yes) and Apple CEO Steve Jobs' personal assistant. (Source: Engadget/Apple)

Apple will hang onto executive for "consulting" for a bit longer, still helmed by a familiar face

There's been a major shift of management at Apple. Tony Fadell, Apple’s senior vice president of the iPod Division, the man credited with envisioning the iPod in the first place, is quitting his job after a wildly successful run of around 7 years. He will remain on as a personal adviser to CEO Steve Jobs.

Mr. Fadell's wife, Danielle Lambert, is a vice president of Human Resources at Apple and also announced her departure. She will be leaving at the end of the year. The pair is cited by Apple as leaving their positions to "devote more time to their young family."

The move comes at a critical crossroads for Apple's iPod. Nonetheless, the next generation devices such as the iPod touch and iPod nano regularly outsell their closest competitors by broad margins.

Mark Papermaster will replace Mr. Fadell and lead the iPod and iPhone teams, reporting directly to Mr. Jobs. Mr. Papermaster was recruited to Apple after 25 years with IBM, serving much of his time with the company as a Vice President. In a soap-operaesque twist, IBM is suing Apple for the acquisition, which it claims was illegal due to a breach of a non-compete agreement. Apple, however, did not hesitate to appoint Mr. Papermaster to one of its most critical posts.

Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO was pleased with the news, stating, "Mark is a seasoned leader and is going to be an excellent addition to our senior management team. Tony and Dani have each made important contributions to Apple over the past eight years. We’re sorry to see Dani go, and are looking forward to working with Tony in his new capacity."

While experience obviously trumps education in roles such as these, Apple was quick to point to Mr. Papermaster's academic credentials. He completed a Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering degree from the University of Texas, and Masters of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Vermont in 1988. He is also cited by Apple to be active with the University of Texas where he is a member of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Advisory Council.

Of course, while Apple may be losing the “father” of the iPod in some capacity, it still has the inventor of the iPhone at its helm -- that's right, Steven P. Jobs. According to the top of Apple's excruciatingly long 371-page patent opus covering the iPhone's user interface, Mr. Jobs was the first inventor to be cited (of 5 individuals).

Odd how the definition for literally literally contradicts itself. Check the meaning of literal and that silly definition isn't there. Nothing like internet dictionaries to give you a good laugh. The "ly" doesn't suddenly change it's definition, they are just turning the normal dictionary into a slang book. What next, yes can also mean no or maybe?

You mean you would value a web dictionary's definition of the term over Merriam Webster's, which dates the word "literally" to 1533, making the use to be older than the United States?

It's not odd how the word "literally" might contradict itself. That's why it takes a little intelligence to actually understand English because English is literally broken, being an amalgamation of several different languages, cultures, and reinventions.

It's not like I'm making this up. The usage is also supported in the Oxford dictionary, which just means you're ignorant of the informal use of the English language.

Even YOUR citations, dictionary.reference.com, includes this definition of literally:In effect; in substance; very nearly; virtually.

So every reference (Oxford, Merriam Webster, and Dictionary) supports my use of the term "literally".

Understood, that is why I'm saying it is a joke. If your definition contradicts itself, then it can't be right. Literal, as you can see, doesn't share that definition even though it is the root of the word literally. I gave Merriam Webster I gave the other dictionary.

Even better, read the antonym. Most heavy English nuts complain about American dictionaries and I see why. The date you give is the origin date of the word, not of the definitions they give. They only started publishing in the mid 1800s.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer